“E-learning is increasingly a natural way to engage students in their learning and for me it has opened up all sorts of opportunities to be innovative in teaching.” (1)
Over the last 6 years the English Subject Centre has funded at least 25 departmental mini-projects that have had a considerable e-learning component in them, ranging from online Punctuation and Spelling exercises in Aries (2) via explorations of new forms of creative interpretation like digital video and animation (3) to our recently released Medieval Hypertext Course pack. (4) The aim has been to provide both individual lecturers and small teams with financial resources to develop their skills and expertise in the emerging field of e-learning and thereby encourage the cascading of these new pedagogical ideas across their departments and the community as a whole.
In 2005 the English Subject Centre carried out a national scoping study into the use and perceptions of elearning in the subject. (5) We received responses from almost half of all English departments in the country and so have been able to gain a valuable snapshot into the ways in which e-learning practice is evolving in the subject. On the whole, reaction was positive to the use of the new digital technologies as the following comments illustrate:
“The possibilities are only limited by the imagination and ingenuity of the lecturer” “Gives another dimension to the classroom and to resources and can be very enjoyable, adding variety for the teacher and for the learner. Can occasionally stimulate a new approach. Colourful.”
“I think VLE directed activities, which students respond to in the Forum, add a whole new dimension to a course, and in particular extend discussions that start in the seminar beyond the classroom. They also have the potential to offer students learning experiences that aren’t possible within a classroom setting.” (6)
However a great deal of scepticism still remains:
“I think that there is a limit to how much you can actually teach and how much people can learn via electronic resources. It only makes sense if you have a model of education that is purely about transfer of knowledge.” “You lose the psychodynamics of education – people can’t fall in love with knowledge and the educational process if they encounter it via a screen.”
“It is time consuming to create the materials and the students often show little interest in becoming involved in the course work outside of class. It entirely depends on the group and how much use they make of the materials on offer. It can be discouraging putting a great deal of time into something that does not in the end add a great deal to the student experience.” (7)
The insights gained from the survey are already helping to shape the Subject Centre’s e-learning support. The 2005 survey, for example, has revealed a high level of use of some form of Virtual Learning Environment (almost 100%). However far fewer practitioners appear to be using e-learning to its fullest potential in imaginative, engaging and interesting ways.
Tables 1 and 2 show the answers to a question in the survey which presented the main pedagogical uses of e-learning and asked respondents to indicate whether they took advantage of these in their teaching and whether they perceived them as being valuable. Of particular note is the high perceived value but low use of online discussion, the development of literacy or writing skills and improving accessibility to learning materials generally. Using e-learning for assessment and feedback was not considered valuable or useful. These results indicate that sponsoring small-scale innovations in the subject, running e-learning events and disseminating information through the website may not be the most effective way to embed e-learning best practice in English studies.
Table 1
* How often do you currently use e-learning for:
|
Never |
Rarely |
Quite often |
Frequently |
communicating with students |
1% (2) |
5% (6) |
11% (13) |
83% (97) |
supporting discussion among students |
18% (21) |
36% (41) |
30% (35) |
16% (18) |
creating learning resources for students e.g. a website or VLE based course |
16% (19) |
20% (23) |
24% (28) |
40% (46) |
providing access to learning resources |
7% (8) |
9% (11) |
36% (42) |
47% (55) |
improving literacy/essay writing skills |
36% (41) |
32% (37) |
20% (23) |
11% (13) |
supporting classroom activities |
8% (9) |
22% (25) |
41% (47) |
29% (33) |
supporting learning outside the classroom |
7% (8) |
27% (31) |
35% (40) |
30% (34) |
improving accessibility for all students e.g. part-time dyslexic |
20% (22) |
32% (36) |
31% (35) |
17% (19) |
assessing students and giving feedback |
30% (34) |
29% (33) |
28% (31) |
12% (14) |
tracking students' activity/progress |
33% (38) |
31% (36) |
23% (27) |
12% (14) |
managing classes |
34% (38) |
27% (31) |
24% (27) |
15% (17) |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Respondents |
116 |
|
|
|
* Source = English Subject Centre E-learning Practitioner survey – June 2005 (x)= number of responses for each choice
Table 2
* How valuable do you think e-learning is for:
|
not at all valuable |
of limited value |
of considerable value |
extremely valuable |
communicating with students |
0% (0) |
4% (5) |
21% (24) |
75% (87) |
supporting discussion among students |
0% (0) |
29% (33) |
39% (45) |
31% (36) |
creating learning resources for students e.g. a website or VLE based course |
2% (2) |
11% (13) |
40% (46) |
47% (55) |
providing access to learning resources |
1% (1) |
6% (7) |
36% (42) |
57% (66) |
improving literacy/essay writing skills |
4% (5) |
52% (60) |
33% (38) |
11% (13) |
supporting classroom activities |
4% (4) |
19% (22) |
48% (55) |
28% (33) |
supporting learning outside the classroom |
2% (2) |
17% (19) |
40% (46) |
41% (47) |
improving accessibility for all students e.g. part-time dyslexic |
1% (1) |
14% (16) |
50% (57) |
36% (41) |
assessing students and giving feedback |
6% (7) |
44% (51) |
34% (39) |
16% (18) |
tracking students' activity/progress |
4% (5) |
47% (54) |
31% (35) |
18% (20) |
managing classes |
12% (13) |
46% (52) |
27% (30) |
16% (18) |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Respondents |
116 |
|
|
|
Table 3
* To what extent do you have:
|
none |
some |
all I need |
more than I need |
Access to e-learning resources relevant to your subject area? |
4% (4) |
48% (54) |
37% (42) |
12% (13) |
Up-to-date information about e-learning technologies? |
6% (7) |
54% (61) |
35% (39) |
5% (6) |
Suitably equipped classrooms? e.g. data projectors, interactive whiteboards,PCs etc |
10% (11) |
65% (73) |
20% (23) |
4% (5) |
Support for your students in accessing and using e-learning technologies outside the classroom? |
7% (8) |
66% (75) |
24% (27) |
2% (2) |
Training for you in how to use e-learning technologies? |
7% (8) |
50% (57) |
38% (43) |
4% (5) |
Staff development in using e-learning technologies for effective learning? |
9% (10) |
50% (57) |
36% (41) |
4% (5) |
Reward recognition and career incentives for using e-learning technologies? |
59% (67) |
32% (36) |
8% (9) |
1% (1) |
Opportunities to share e-learning ideas and experiences with colleagues? |
22% (25) |
58% (65) |
19% (22) |
0% (0) |
Robust technical infrastructure? |
13% (15) |
50% (56) |
30% (34) |
4% (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Respondents |
113 |
|
|
|
When asked about the main barriers to using e-learning technologies 43% of respondents mentioned lack of time: time to upload materials; time for training opportunities; time to set up initial programmes; time to stay up-to-date etc. Other barriers included lack of technical expertise as well as a lack of understanding of the potential of using these new teaching tools to enhance the student learning experience.
Instead of sponsoring another round of e-learning projects in departments around the country, we felt it might be more effective to provide a solution to the issue of ‘time’ by offering academics time-out from their day-to-day teaching and research commitments to focus on the development of e-learning materials and resources, and give them the time to examine the effectiveness or otherwise of existing approaches. As Oliver and Dempster (2002) have noted:
In responding to the call for innovation, particularly alluring in the e-learning arena, we can become guilty of failing to embed what has already been successful in developing teaching and learning.
We fall into the trap of ‘project’ frenzy, always moving to the next strategic priority or technological facility before evaluating the extent to which the previous development was effective and worthwhile. It is also important to consider what influences staff engagement and participation in teaching developments in order to shift practices at a rate that is appropriate for a department or institution. (8)
Could there be a smarter way to support the sustainable development of e-learning in the subject? Could we experiment with discipline based approaches to the support of e-learning development? Why, given the focus and investment in both centralised and decentralised e-learning support within institutions over the last few years is so little of that support reaching English departments across the country? (see Table 3)
In response to such concerns the Subject Centre applied for funds being offered through the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) Distributed E-learning Strand, the aim of which, from a practitioner perspective, is to provide guidance on how to access, plan and use e-learning resources within appropriate e-learning systems (Bailey, 2006). We were successful in our application to establish of a network of e-learning ‘advocates’.
Over the summer we then opened a national bidding process in which any English department in the UK could bid for money to fund one e-learning advocate. The result is our ambitious e-learning project for the 2006-7 academic year taking place in six different English departments. Six colleagues currently devote one day a week to working alongside their departmental colleagues as a designated e-learning advocate. Their brief is to discover and understand what kinds of new pedagogical tools the digital age is providing us and how to use them to create meaningful learning experiences within individual departments. The role of the e-learning advocate includes activities such as:
• working on the particular projects identified by their departments in their proposals;
• increasing awareness of the potential of e-learning by running seminars or giving presentations within their departments;
• providing formal or informal training and or consultancy to academics as appropriate;
• identifying academics with ideas for e-learning resources and helping them to develop these into real tools;
• advising the department on the sort of facilities and hardware that would facilitate e-learning;
working in partnership with academics and support staff to develop e-learning tools and gather student feedback; • reporting back to the Subject Centre on best practice in collaborative working between learning technologists and academics; In short, these advocates will act as both a catalyst for change within a department and a source of practical help and advice for those wishing to make greater use of e-learning. Our inaugural group of six advocates (profiled at the end of this article) were selected from a wide range of submissions. The criteria for selection included factors such as strategy, impact, sustainability, need and spread of ‘contexts’. By providing six English departments with an e-learning advocate we hope to achieve the following goals and posit answers to the following questions:
1. Have a foundation on which to provide evidence-based advice on effective and sustainable staff e-learning support models to the English subject community. By allowing different approaches to be developed and compared can we be smarter about the integration of technologies at a subject level?
2. Amongst as many members of each participating department as possible, raise overall understanding of the ways in which e-learning can broaden their pedagogical toolkit and potentially enhance the overall student experience. What methods are most successful? What factors affect interest and uptake?
3. Help overturn some of the entrenched beliefs held by academics within the community towards pedagogical innovation by enabling them to make educationally sound choices about using technology in their courses. Can discipline-based approaches to e-learning support overcome academic scepticism?
4. Encourage contribution to research and publication in the area of e-learning from within the discipline. Are we merely replicating existing practice online or can the teaching and learning of the subject be enhanced?
We anticipate that the variety of support mechanisms which evolve during the course of the project using this departmental ‘advocacy’ framework will provide valuable new insights into best practice for encouraging the adoption of new teaching methods or materials in the teaching of English. If you would like further information about the project or would like to know how the project is progressing, please contact Brett Lucas at brett.lucas@rhul.ac.uk
Dr Matthew Day
Dept of English, Bishop Grosseteste College
The English Department at Bishop Grosseteste runs both an undergraduate programme and provides input to the Primary and Secondary PGCE programmes. The department is well-resourced technologically (Whiteboards, tablet PCs etc) and so the advocacy model will provide information, support and advice to all staff in how to effectively use the technologies to make stimulating learning experiences. Key to the approach is the development of subject specifi c resources as examples of best practice for dissemination within and beyond the college.
Dr Lesley Coote
Dept of English, University of Hull
The advocacy model at Hull centres on the use of the Interactive Whiteboard – a technology which brings together many associated e-learning tools – as a catalyst for the development of e-learning skills more generally in the department. The project also aims to build a collection of ‘Whiteboard materials’ which will be made available to the wider community.
Dr Christopher Ringrose
Dept of English, University of Northampton
This advocacy model will explore levers for change that might facilitate the uptake of technologies within a department. The advocate will be facilitating the move from basic use of e-learning to more integrated, interactive and innovative pedagogical approaches across all modules. These developments will occur during a major ‘curriculum revision’ exercise. This will be achieved using such means as a VLE site where elearning work-in-progress can be shared by staff, use of on-line logs and portfolios for assessment and the incorporation of regular student feedback into the development process.
Dr Lee Horsley
Dept of English & Creative Writing, University of Lancaster
The English department at Lancaster have a successful track record in the teaching of Creative Writing. Their advocacy model will use the established Creative Writing methodologies as a starting point for the development of e-learning in the teaching of literature. The tools used within the VLE designed to engage Creative Writing students and tutors in a process of creation-response-creation will be adapted to the teaching of literature by promoting the more fl uid articulation of critical arguments/ counter-arguments and to promote a sense of the critical text as process.
Dr Stuart Robertson
Dept of English, University of Central England (UCE)– Birmingham The advocacy model at UCE will explore best practice in blended learning courses delivered through the VLE. The advocate will work with colleagues teaching the fi rst year poetry module to create a best practice example of integrating e-learning into undergraduate teaching. This will assist in the development of VLE courses across the department. The project involves developing the skills of staff in using discussion fora, planning online activities that jigsaw with classroom work and with students’ independent learning. There will also be monthly themed workshops involving all teaching colleagues in the department.
Dr Rosie Miles
Dept of English, University of Wolverhampton
A slightly different advocacy model is being explored at Wolverhampton. The advocate will establish a regional network for e-learning in English studies between three English departments in the local region. They will liaise with departments on e-learning developments; discuss and suggest ways in which elearning could be used within particular departmental contexts; support individual initiatives as an external friend; act as a conduit to enable colleagues to make useful contacts in the region; to disseminate relevant information and ideas (e.g. via an e-bulletin).
Notes
1. English Subject Centre E-learning Practitioner Survey 2005.
2. ARIES: Punctuation, Spelling and Reference for the Web available at: http://tinyurl.co.uk/wl5h.
3. New Tools for Creative Interpretation: An Investigative Study using Digital Video and Computer Animation available at: http://tinyurl.co.uk/ygaubs
4. Old English Online Coursepack available at: http://tinyurl.co.uk/s0cl.
5. The LTSN Generic Centre (2002) defined e-learning as “Learning facilitated and supported through the use of information and communication technologies.”
6. English Subject Centre E-learning Practitioner Survey 2005.
7. English Subject Centre E-learning Practitioner Survey 2005.
8. M. Oliver & J. Dempster, ‘Strategic Staff Development for Embedding E-learning Practices in HE.’ Interactions Vol 6, No 3, 2002.
